


























































































































«• •*•«♦*•#» Ml 

- 

» M»MI|| M 







mmmiMii 

miwm 

itMltitlMn 

mm 


IIIMMMM'V 


'i 

•.. 

MMUM'IH 



I I:*- 

... 

Bmp 

• •‘iiMtiiMH' 
• ■ * • ’ 

H'MlMlMltM 

iMltl|4|IM«fl 

«»»MI 

MUMM'ttMM 

) •«»!•«'«»•(*•< 

Ml 

: ii 

• i .••(»»•<«« ti* 

- 

• iMMM/MMMI 
.M.mJWmmh 

.H.lMt.MlfU 

'"Ki'ini'ii 

.*»•. 

; FsSmHw 

i* 

IMMM9»%*«tM« 

hMMIIHMMM 

IMI. 

HfiMlMdlMM 

MMOlMfMuli 
•«««•■?#' M.M.. 

; 

•iMtMM'HlitM 

•.. 

rjunijjHj 

i mmhMmmm»h 

IIMMMIM Mill 
•M'Ol'Hi '.Mil 

] ..(IlMm.lM 

•lM«|lt|M • Hot 

••••fit*'******* 

iomMo.mioi 

‘IMI J'J" M 

■ittjjjSlijiii 

Mfe 

w Mint} 




* ■••••» 

• • M • J J j 


• il«M 

•MM 


Wit 


•'»•••• 
f "Ml | 

.If 

•MM 


■ '"Ml 


• Ml 


•Mil 


Ml MM 
'••‘I* 
» IMM 
• mMm 
MM m 
"•» 

'll 1 MM 
•m imi 


•ti lili 


"• *•* 
"MM* 
‘•Mill 


•Ml 


• •MM 
• IlfMI 

•♦'•If 


rffittui 

imhii 

•Mil* M< 

:n«U! 

. 

• •••Mu 


'ml 

ippn 

"»•»»» 

m 

'MitlH 


w 






o*m 






*»***« 


r r 


9 


*»»•»«« 


m 


■•**• 


• llll 

'IMI 

• 

JMH 
• Moi 






."Hi 

Xi 


:;rJ 


•in 

•• % • 

















SPEECH 


JK 1071 
. C3 

Copy 1 of 

OoW 

MR. CAMPBELL, OF SOUTH CAROLINA 


ON THE 


REASONS FILED BY THE PRESIDENT 


FOR 


APPROVING THE APPORTIONMENT BILL: 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 6, 1842. 


WASHINGTON: 


# 






' 


A" 






PRINTED AT THE GLOBE OFFICE 


1842. 















' 











**•" ■'! *11 


> » 










- • O 

i 

4 - * 1 i 




















4 



SPEECH 


A motion to “refer to the select committee ap¬ 
pointed on that subject, an authenticated copy of the 
reasons filed in the State Department by the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States for approving the appor¬ 
tionment bill,” being under consideration— 

Mr. CAMPBELL said that, in advocating the 
reference proposed, he was confident he was influ¬ 
enced by no feeling of hostility to the President. 
So far from it, he thought the whole country owed 
to that eminent individual a debt of gratitude—not 
only for having, with the self-devotion of the Ro¬ 
man Curtius, twice saved it from the yoke of a 
United States Bank; but for having recently pre¬ 
vented the spirit of the Constitution, which contem¬ 
plates the unbiased exercise of the opinion of the 
Executive in the approval of bills, being violated 
in his person, through the atiempt that was made to 
enforce his approval of measures which he was 
known to be opposed to, by incorporating those 
measures in a revenue bill, which it was supposed 
that the urgent necessities of the treasury would 
compel him to sanction. 

However much the majority here might differ 
from the President in relation to these acts, it ap¬ 
peared to him that, when the excitement of party 
had subsided, all, in a calm review of these trans¬ 
actions, would be compelled 1o award to him the 
praise of an uncompromising adherence to prin¬ 
ciple in the midst of no ordinary trials, a firmness 
of resolve, and a conscientious discharge of duty 
in the administration of the Government, that enti¬ 
tled him to respect. 

Mr. C. had made these remarks to show that he 
was influenced by no personal or political preju¬ 
dice in disapproving the course which the Presi¬ 
dent had adopted in approving the apportionment 
bill—a course which he conceived to be not only 
unauthorized by the Constitution, but was a danger¬ 
ous (though he did not doubt an unintentional) en¬ 
croachment on the privileges of the House. 

The language of the Constitution is, that— 

“Every bill which shall have passed the Huiise of Repre¬ 
sentatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be pre¬ 
sented to the President of the United Slates; if he approve, he 
shall sign it; but if not, he ehail return it, with his objections, 
to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter 
the objections at large upon their journal, and proceed to recon¬ 
sider it.” 

The reason of the difference thus prescribed in 
relation to the duties of the President, when he ap¬ 
proves and when he does not approve a bill, must 
be manifest to every gentleman on the slightest 


consideration. His declining to approve a bill, is 
not the absolute negative of the Roman tribune; it 
is only a qualified negative, wisely provided as a 
safeguard against inconsiderate legislation, and pro¬ 
duces the necessity of a reconsideration; in which, 
if the bill receives the approbation of two-thirds of 
both Houses of Congress, it becomes a law, not¬ 
withstanding his objections. In this reconsidera¬ 
tion, made necessary by the express command of 
the Constitution, it is certainly proper that the ob¬ 
jections of the President should be in our posses¬ 
sion, in order that they may be fully examined. Bu 
there is no language in the Constitution which jus¬ 
tifies him, in approving a bill, either to assign his 
reasons for so doing on the bill itself, or to file them 
in the archives of the Government; and, notwith¬ 
standing the ingenious argument of the gentleman 
[Mr. Cushing] who has just taken his seat, there is 
nothing in its spirit which justifies him for so do¬ 
ing. The gentleman had argued that the “Presi¬ 
dent is possessed, in part, of legislative power; 
because his co operation is necessary to the creation 
of a law, unless, after his veto, it is passed by a 
majority of two-thirds of both branches of Congress; 
that the members of either House assigned their 
reasons for approving a bill;” and inquires “why 
the President should not be allowed the same priv¬ 
ilege!” Without altogether concurring in, or al¬ 
together objecting to, the exposition given by the 
gentleman of the nature of the powers’vested in the 
President, it was sufficient for him to say that the 
members of neither House of Congress claimed 
or exercised the right to file their reasons in 
the public archives for approving or opposing a 
bill. He did not object that the President should 
assign his reasons lor approving a bill, either in 
communications to his friends, or through the pub¬ 
lic press, to the country. The press was as open to 
him as it was to any citizen. He had indeed beea 
told, the moment before he rose to address the 
House, that Gen. Jackson had intimated, through 
the columns of the Globe, in 1836, that he intended 
to assign his reasons to the country, through the 
press, for approving the distribution act of that 
year. 

The gentleman [Mr. Cushing] had also argued 
that the President might be considered as “possess¬ 
ing judicial power,” which he illustrated by his right 
to approve or disapprove the sentences of courts- 
martial. That power, however, if judicial it may 
be called, Mr. Campbell contended must be con- 









4 




fined, within the limits of the Constitution, to the : 
approval or disapproval of sentences of courts-mar¬ 
tial ; and does not authorize the President, clothed 
with authority and patronage, at the moment of 
approving a law, to file an exposition of his reasons 
for so doing — giving , perhaps , a construction to the 
law , by which the courts and juries of the country 
may be overawed, or intimidated, or in some other 
manner influenced, in the independent discharge of 
their duties. 

To show conclusively the impropriety of the 
course adopted by the President, let us suppose that, 
in the moment of approving a criminal law, he 
should file ah exposition of his reasons for so doing 
in the Department of State, giving a construction 
to it different from the construction afterwards 
given by the court. An individual is indicted un¬ 
der this law, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to 
death. He applies to the President for pardon. 
He says to him: “Sir, according to the construction 
which you placed upon the law, and filed in the 
archives of the country at the moment of signing 
it, I would not have been found guilty; but the 
courts have construed it differently, and I am sen¬ 
tenced to die. To you is confided the pardoning 
power; and had it not been for the prospect of im¬ 
punity held out to me by your act, I would never 
have committed the deed for which I am con¬ 
demned.” No matter what change may have taken 
place in the President’s opinion in relation to the 
proper construction of the law, he would be bound 
in honor, in religion, and in humanity, to pardon 
the individual, who, perhaps, without this unauthor¬ 
ized act of his, would never have been guilty of 
the crime for which he was condemned. Thus 
you see that, by this course, the President might 
not only exercise an indirect influence over the 
courts, but destroy his own independence in the 
administration of the laws. 

But why should we suppose cases of aggrava¬ 
tion,^vvhen there is not one in the whole catalogue 
of laws, in which such an act on the part of the Pres¬ 
ident could be so alarming as in the present'! The 
apportionment law, for approving which he has filed 
his reasons in the State Department, is an election 
law, intended exclusively to regulate the elections 
of the members of this House. Under the Constitu¬ 
tion, each House is the exclusive judge of the 
“qualifications, returns, and elections of its mem¬ 
bers.” Here, however, is an interpretation put 
upon the law by the President, expressing a strong 
doubt of its'constitutionality, which is calculated 
to influence the judgment ol members, in deciding 
upon elections held under it. With such jealous 
watchfulness has this House heretofore guarded its 
privileges, that, rather than allow the other branch of 
the Legislature to participate so far as even to give 
its sanction to rules of evidence to govern cases of 
contested elections, it has submitted for many years 
to the great inconvenience of having no fixed 
rules whatever on that subject; but each House of 
each Congress establishes regulations for the taking 
and admission of evidence applicable to its own 
elections, as the cases arise. Hence, as gentlemen 
are aware, contesters frequently come in without 
a particle of'admissible evidence in support of their 
claims. The Committee of Elections prescribe 
rules which are sanctioned by the House. The 
contesters return to their respective States, to at¬ 
tend to the taking of evidence; and the long ses¬ 
sion has sometimes almost expired before the elec¬ 
tions are determined. Shall we, who have hitherto 
guarded our privileges on the subject of elections 


with so much jealousy, allow this act of the Pres¬ 
ident to pass, without even a protest! 

He congratulated the House upon the prospect of 
having the subject referred to a committee, with 
such an experienced and well-qualified chairman 
as the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams.] 
He hoped that the whole matter would be inquired 
into in all its bearings, and that the committee 
would report what measures we should adopt. 

When the apportionment bill was returned to us 
a second time from the Senate, with the amend¬ 
ments of that body insisted on, he had, in common 
with many others, felt some excitement. But when 
he reflected (as he immediately.did) that that body 
had an equal right with the House to legislate and 
propose alterations; that it was equally interested 
in the subject; that its members, as citizens of the 
different States, composed a part of that great con¬ 
stituent body which we. represen ted; when he also 
considered that the true principle of representation 
consisted less in the numbers than in the due re¬ 
sponsibility of the Representative,—he was disposed, 
in a spirit of compromise, to adopt a medium num¬ 
ber. When, afterwards, a majority of the House 
determined to accede to the amendments of the Sen¬ 
ate, he cheerfully acquiesced, and felt that nothing 
had occurred to endanger our privileges or to im¬ 
pair our dignity. But if the Senate, not content with 
amending, had proceeded, as a body, to file its inter¬ 
pretation of a law in the public archives, intended 
exclusively for the regulation of the elections of the 
members of this House—is there a gentleman here 
who would not have resented the act as an encroach¬ 
ment on our privileges'? And can any gentleman 
assign a reason why such a course on the part of the 
Senate would be either more absurd, or less author¬ 
ized by the Constitution, than on the part of the 
President! 

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise] had, 
it is true, attempted to shield the President under the 
mantle of General Jackson, who once approved a 
bill, and put his reasons for so doing on it. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] in 
reply, had shown that there was no analogy between 
the two cases. But, if there was, it would be no 
justification, for precedent cannot sanction wrong. 
The bill alluded to, was a bill authorizing certain 
works of internal improvement; and, among other 
things, the construction of a road from Detroit, in 
the then Territory of Michigan, to Chicago, in the 
State of Illinois. General Jackson approved it 
with a qualification, in effect, that it should not be 
construed as authorizing the construction of a road 
in a State: in other words, he amended the bill! 
Surely, no one will for a moment contend that this 
was a constitutional act on the part of the old hero. 
It was a direct usurpation of legislative power, 
muo h more palpable than the quasi exercise of the 
judicial tunction by Mr. Tyler, in filing on a sep¬ 
arate piece of paper an exposition of his reasons for 
signing the apportionment bill; and had not Con¬ 
gress been so near its adjournment, (half an hour, 
as he was informed, of the end of the session,) it 
would, doubtless, not have passed unrebuked. He 
had no doubt whatever that both General Jackson 
and Mr. Tyler were actuated by fair and honorable 
motives; but the assumption of unauthorized legis¬ 
lative power in the one case, and the encroachment 
on our privileges in the other, are not less real than 
if they had been designed. 

Not content with defending the President, the 
gentleman had, as was his custom, carried the 
war into the enemy’s territory, and assailed the 


f 



5 


law upon its merits. He could not, liowever, re¬ 
gard this assault as made in much sincerity; for, 
on reference to the journal which he held in his 
hand, he found, upon the question “Shall the bill 
be engrossed, and read a third time'l” the name 
of his friend— “Henry A. Wise” —recorded in the 
affirmative. This was after the districting clause 
was incorporated. Not only so; but after weeks 
of reflection—after having had all the advantage 
of the light thrown upon the subject by the dis¬ 
cussion in the other, as well as in this branch of 
the Legislature—after the feature of fractional 
representation had also been included, and the bill 
had assumed the precise shape in which it be¬ 
came a law—the gentleman again, in effect, voted 
for it, when he voted against the motion of the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wm. C. John¬ 
son] to lay it on the table; the last vote taken by 
ayes and noes on the bill. After these repeated 
votes, by which this law had received his most 
solemn sanction, he was surprised to hear him de¬ 
nounce it as being passed by “a brute force,” and 
a “Federal majority,” that was endeavoring to break 
down the barriers of the Constitution, and tram- 
le upon the rights of the States. If it was passed 
y a brute force, the gentleman had added to that 
force the momentum of his weight. If it was 
passed by a Federal majority, the gentleman had 
lent his name to swell the very majority of which 
he complained. If the gentleman intended any¬ 
thing beyond eloquent declamation in these loud- 
sounding epithets, and really repented of the votes 
which he had given in favor of this law, he would 
recommend him to soothe his conscience by read¬ 
ing the admirable speech of his friend and col¬ 
league [Mr. S. H. Butler] in its support—a gen¬ 
tleman of as pure democratic principles, and as 
devoted attachment to the rights of the States, as 
is to be found in this House, or elsewhere. Par¬ 
ticularly did he commend to the gentleman, “as 
a friend of State rights,” that part of his colleague’s 
speech where he says that he does “not wonder at 
the sneers constantly thrown at the doctrine of State 
rights, when such ridiculous pretensions are set 
up by men who profess to be their peculiar guar¬ 
dians.” 

Mr. C. here referred to a number of the Demo¬ 
cratic members by name, (passing high eulogies on 
several of them,) who had voted for the engross¬ 
ment of this apportionment bill, against which so 
much complaint had recently been made, and which 
the country was persuaded to believe was passed 
by a party vote. When the question was on or¬ 
dering the bill to a third reading, (districting clause 
included,) it was voted for by several of the Demo¬ 
cratic members. After the fractional principle had 
also been introduced, the following gentlemen, by 
voting against the motion of the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. W. Cost Johnson] to lay the bill 
on the table, in effect voted for its passage: 

Messrs. A. V. Brown, John Campbell, Reuben 
Chapman, Edward Cross, T. W. Gilmer, Charles 
J. Ingersoll, Wm. W. Irwin, Cave Johnson, John 
W. Jones, John Thomson Mason, William Par- 
menter, George H. Proftit, Almon H. Read, Hop¬ 
kins L. Turney, Harvey M. Watterson, and Henry 
A. Wise—16 voting for the law. 

Notwithstanding these facts, an effort was making 
to produce the impression that the Democratic 
party had voted against the measure en masse. The 
journal would show that, without their aid, the bill 
could not have been passed. 

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wise] had 


said] that some regarded this bill as recommenda¬ 
tory, and some as mandatory; and that many of 
those voting for it would not have done so, had they 
considered it in the nature of a mandate to the 
States to district themselves. Such the gentleman 
from Alabama' [Mr. Shields] had declared to be 
his position. 

The President’s exposition of his reasons for ap¬ 
proving the bill was not yet printed; but he had 
made an extract from it, from which he would read 
the following passage: 

“One of the prominent features of the bill is that which pur¬ 
ports to be mandatory on the States to form districts for the 
choice of Representatives to Congress in single districts. That 
Congress itself has power, by law, to alter State regulations 
respecting the manner of holding elections for Representatives, 
is clear; but its power to.command the States to make new 
regulations, or alter their existing regulations, is the question 
upon which I felt deep and strong doubts. 1 have yielded these 
doubts, however, to the opinion of the Legislature, giving effect 
to their enactment as far as depends on my approbation, and 
leaving questions which may arise hereafter, (if unhappily such 
should arise,) to be settled by full consideration of the several 
provisions of the Constitution and the laws, and the authority 
of each House to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifica¬ 
tions of its own members.” 

Thus it is obvious that the President regards 
this law as a command from Congress to the 
States. But, before proceeding to examine the con¬ 
struction put upon it, either by him or by the gen¬ 
tlemen from Virginia and Alabama, Mr. C. would 
request gentlemen to bear in mind that there was 
no question of original State rights involved in the 
matter. The right to send members to Congress 
could no more exist in a State before she adopted 
the Federal Constitution, and became a member of 
the political sisterhood, than to send members to 
the Parliament of England. All the power which 
can be exercised, either by the State Legislatures 
or by Congress, in prescribing “the times, places, 
and manner of holding elections,” is conferred in 
the same clause of the Constitution, in language so 
plain, that “he who runs may read,” provided he 
will first strip from his eyes the film of preju¬ 
dice. v 

But the President and the gentlemen from Vir¬ 
ginia and Alabama are wrong in the construction 
which they give to this law. It is neither a com¬ 
mand nor a recommendation from Congress to the 
State Legislatures. They are, however, under the 
command not of Congress, but of the Constitution 
—of that Constitution under which we are here 
assembled, which is the bond of union between the 
States; which not only Congress, but the State Le¬ 
gislatures, are bound to obey; and which every 
citizen who has the heart of a patriot, and the 
spirit of a man, is ready to defend. 

The districting clause of the law reads as fol¬ 
lows: 

“Sec. 2. And be it further enacted^ That in every case 
where a State is entitled to more than one Representative, the 
number to which each State shall be entitled under this appor¬ 
tionment shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous 
territory, equal in number to the number of Representatives to 
which said State may be entitled; no one district electing more 
than one Representative.” 

Mr. C. defied the opponents of this section to 
point out anything in its language, or in its con¬ 
text, which assumed more the air of command 
to the State Legislatures than there was in the first. 
The first section prescribes the number of members 
to which each State shall be entitled; the second 
section prescribes that they shall be elected by dis¬ 
tricts; and the Constitution of the United States 
made it obligatory on the State Legislatures to 
adopt the regulations necessary to carry both into 


« 






6 




effect. The first section cannot be carried into ef¬ 
fect unless the second is also; for, while it remains 
the law of the land, elections not made in conform¬ 
ity to it will be null and void—unless, indeed, the 
doubt expressed by the President of its constitu¬ 
tionality, together with other suggestions, may in¬ 
duce the next House of Representatives to decide 
it unconstitutional. 

The clause of the Constitution which confers 
on the State Legislatures as well as upon Congress 
all the power which they can exercise over the sub¬ 
ject, reads as follows: 

“The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Sen¬ 
ators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by 
the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by 
law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of 
choosing Senators.” 

4 This language, Mr. C. insisted, was clear, expli¬ 
cit, and commandatory upon the State Legislatures: 
it allowed them no discretion whatever. To Con¬ 
gress it confides a controlling power , to make or 
alter the regulations as to the times, places, and 
manner of holding elections for Representatives, 
either in whole or in part; and to the extent that the 
power is exercised by Congress, and only to that extent , 
are the State Legislatures relieved from the duties 
and obligations imposed upon them by the Consti¬ 
tution. They are as much bound by that instru¬ 
ment to adopt the necessary measures to carry this 
law into effect, as they would be to regulate the 
elections in case such a law had not been passed. 

If the Legislatures of any of the States should 
unhappily be influenced by a predetermination to 
oppose this law, rather than by a calm and can¬ 
did inquiry after truth, (which he did not believe 
they would,)—by a spirit of faction, rather than by 
a desire to perform their constitutional duties— 
there would be no limit to the objections that might 
be urged. If Congress were to proceed, (as the op¬ 
ponents of this law insist that we are bound to do, 
if we touch the subject at all,) and, by geographi¬ 
cal lines, divide the States into districts; it might be 
urged, with just as much plausibility, that the elec¬ 
tions cannot be made because, forsooth, Congress 
had commanded the States to appoint the managers 
of the elections, to provide the ballot-boxes, and to 
designate the precincts at which the elections shall 
be held. If Congress were to overcome these objec¬ 
tions, by appointing the managers, designating the 
election-precincts, &c.; still it might be urged that 
it is an invasion of State rights, and the elections 
cannot be constitutionally held, because the State 
Legislatures are commanded to provide for the 
counting of the votes, and making other arrange¬ 
ments to complete the returns. Thus frivolous 
objections might be piled on each other, until Con¬ 
gress would be compelled to forego the exercise of 
a power clearly constitutional, (and which, for 
the purpose of restoring uniformity in the elec¬ 
tions, we believe to be now necessary,) or resort to 
the exercise of minute and inconvenient powers. 
The details can manifestly be much more conve¬ 
niently directed by the State Legislatures, from 
their better acquaintance and more intimate con¬ 
nexion with local circumstances; and the Consti¬ 
tution never contemplated their regulation by Con¬ 
gress, unless the State Legislatures neglected or 
were prevented from discharging their duties. 

Mr. C. then referred to the intelligence that had 
been received, that each branch of the Legislature 
of New Hampshire (which he complimented as one 
of the most patriotic States of the Union) had 
adopted resolutions expressive of a determination 


not to district her territory. These resolutions, 
adopted before the law had passed, and which, he 
hoped, had resulted from the first impulse of re¬ 
sentment at a supposed contemplated encroachment 
on the rights of the States, without a deliberate ex¬ 
amination of its provisions, he trusted would be re¬ 
viewed; and that it would be the pride and pleasure 
of that noble State hereafter, as it had always been 
heretofore, to stand up in defence of the Constitu¬ 
tion. Although she might be opposed to this law, 
he could not doubt that, when satisfied of its consti¬ 
tutionality, she would adopt the necessary regula¬ 
tions to have her Representatives in Congress 
elected under its provisions; and ready, if required 
by their constituents, to vote for its repeal. 

In replying to the objection that Congress could 
not exercise part of its power over the times, man¬ 
ner, and places of holding elections for its mem¬ 
bers, without exercising the whole; he said it was 
not more reasonable than to contend that Congress 
could exercise no power over the raising of reve¬ 
nue, because it diet not exercise the whole which 
is conferred upon it by the Constitution. The 
tariffbill now pending in Committee of the Whole, 
proposes to raise revenue only by the imposition of 
duties on importations; yet, however its constitu¬ 
tionality may be questioned in other respects, no 
one is so absurd as to believe that it is unconstitution 
al because it does not embrace in it direct taxes 
and excises—all of which powers are conferred in 
the same clause. That the controlling power con¬ 
fided to Congress over the “times, places, and man¬ 
ner” of holding elections for Representatives may be 
exercised at its discretion, either in whole or in part, 
he thought was manifest: 1st. From the language of 
the Constitution. 2d. From the proceedings of the 
Federal convention that framed it. 3d. From the 
proceedings of the State conventions in adopting it; 
particularly from the resolutions of seven out of the 
original thirteen, indicating a wish that the Consti¬ 
tution should be so amended as either to take the 
power entirely from Congress, or modify its exer¬ 
cise; and, 5th. From the expositions given to it be¬ 
fore and at the time of the adoption of the Constitu¬ 
tion, both by its opponents and advocates. 

• He would not detain the House to read various 
extracts to sustain this view; yet he could not re¬ 
frain from quoting the remarks of one of the most 
talented and influential opponents of the Constitu¬ 
tion—Patrick Henry. In the Virginia convention 
Mr. Henry said: 

‘ The control given to Congress will totally destroy the end 
of sulFrage.” * * * ‘ Congress is to have a discretionary 

control over the time, place, and manner of elections. The 
Representatives are to be elected, consequently, when and 
where they please. As to the time and place, gentlemen have 
attempted to obviate the objection, by^ saying that the time is to 
happen once in two years, and that the place is to be within a 
particular district, or in the respective counties. But how will 
they obviate the danger of referring the manner of election to 
Congress?” * * * “ 1’he power over the manner admits of 

the most dangerous latitude. They may modify it as they 
please .” 

This exposition could neither be controverted 
nor denied. 

To show some of the reasons for which the 
power had been granted, he would not detain the 
House longer than to read a short extract from the 
remarks of one who had emphatically been called 
the “Father of the Constitution,” In answer to an 
interrogatory submitted by Mr. Monroe, in the Vir¬ 
ginia convention, Mr. Madison said— 

“It was found impossible to fix the time, place, and manner 
of the election of Representatives, in the Constitution. It was 
found necessary to leave the regulation of these , in the first 



7 


place, to the State Governments , as being best acquainted with 
the situation of the people, subject to the control of the General 
Government, in order to produce uniformity and prevent its 
own dissolution.” 

It would thus be perceived that the object of 
granting this power to Congress was to produce 
uniformity, and prevent a dissolution of the Union. 
That it should not be wantonly and unnecessarily 
exercised, all would admit. But can any gentle¬ 
man, in candor, say that its exercise is not now 
necessary, in order to effect one of the principal ob¬ 
jects for which it was granted—to wit, uniformity? 
Look around, and behold the Representatives of the 
people of seven States assembled in this hall, elected 
by general ticket, and enabled to concentrate their 
entire respective strength upon every question of 
importance; while the people of the nineteen other 
States, are represented by districts, reflecting every 
shade of political opinion entertained by those 
they represent and frequently so divided upon im¬ 
portant questions as almost entirely to neutralize 
their votes. If Congress does not discharge its 
duty in relation to this subject, and the seven States 
which now elect by general ticket do not return to 
the district system, the other States, in self-defence, 
will be compelled to adopt the general ticket, even 
against their unbiased wishes. In the great State 
of Pennsylvania, and in Maine, such changes in 
their respective systems were suggested shortly be¬ 
fore the passage of this law. The contagion would 
extend; State after State, in rapid succession, would 
adopt it in their elections; and the power of Congress 
to exercise a control over the subject would forever 
be gone. The States would be virtually repre¬ 
sented as States, in both branches of Congress; and 
the democratic principle of the Government be 
extinguished, without hope of resuscitation—the 
voice of minorities in the different States would be 
silenced in our deliberations—all questions of im¬ 
portance would assume a sectional character—the 
North voting en masse against the South, the South 
en masse against the North; and the people of the 
minority section would thus be made the “hewers 
of wood and the drawers of water” to the ma¬ 
jority section of the Union, until compelled to seek 
refuge from oppression in its dissolution. 

Mr. C. could not suppress an expression of re¬ 
gret at the efforts which had been made to give to 
this subject the aspect of a party question. He 
had introduced the resolution, which was the ori¬ 
gin of the districting clause, without inquiring 
whether its adoption might or might not probably 
tend slightly to the advantage of either one party 
or the other, in one or two of the States, at the 
next election for Representatives. Although vo¬ 
ting upon all questions of importance as, accord¬ 
ing to the suggestions of his own mind, they were 
calculated to affect the rights and interests of his 
constituents and country, even when those sugges¬ 
tions separated him from his political friends, he 
professed to be, and was regarded, he believed, by 
all, as a member of the Democratic party. Look¬ 
ing upon this, however, as a great measure of re¬ 
form, important, if not essential to the preserva¬ 
tion of our institutions in their purity, he could not 
consent that his course upon it should be paralyzed 
by the petty, temporary consideration that it might, 
perchance, be the means of electing a few Whigs 
from some States possessing Democratic majori¬ 
ties; which States might, by the general ticket, 


send all their members of the same political faith; 
or the reverse, in relation to one or two Whig 
States. 

He also expressed his disapprobation of the ef¬ 
forts made by the party press, in this city and else¬ 
where, to produce in the State Legislatures a spirit 
of resistance to this law. When these agitators are 
convinced—as they may be, by reference to our 
journal—that the districting clause could not have 
been inserted, in the first instance, without Demo¬ 
cratic votes; and that the motion to lay the bill upon 
the table—the last vote taken by ayes and nces on 
the subject—was defeated by Democratic votes; he 
hoped that they would be more discreet in their de¬ 
nunciations. This motion to lay on the table was 
defeated by 16 majority. For the motion 22 Whigs 
voted—against it 12,Democrats, and 4 who are in¬ 
cluded neither in the Whig nor Democratic ranks 
as such, but are known as the supporters of the 
present Administration; professing, and he believed 
truly intending, to go for the country, independent of 
party. 

Had the Democrats who voted against this mo¬ 
tion voted for it, the bill would have been laid on 
the table by a majority of eight votes. Had the 
Democrats and Administration men who voted 
against this motion voted for it, the bill would have 
been laid on the table by a majority of sixteen votes. 
Thus it was evident that the bill was carried, not by 
an exclusive party vote, but that it received a re¬ 
spectable support* from every party in the House; 
and that without the support of a portion of the 
Democratic party, it could not have been passed at 
all in its present form. In addition to this, it may 
be remarked that there were three gentlemen of 
the Democratic party, and one Administration 
man, who voted for the engrossment of the bill, 
(the districting clause included,) that either voted lor 
the motion to lay on the table, or did not vote on it 
at all. 

Except in alluding to the question of privilege, 
and the restriction which he conceived to be im¬ 
posed, both by the letter and spirit of the Constitu¬ 
tion, on the President, in the approval of bills, Mr. 
C. had not extended his remarks beyond a reply 
to the construction placed by the President on the 
districting clause, an answer to the attacks made up¬ 
on the law by one of the gentlemen who defended 
him, and a slight reference to the repeated attempts 
made by a portion of the press to excite a spirit of 
opposition to it. He would now briefly reply to 
that part of the exposition which related to the con¬ 
stitutionality of the feature of fractional represent¬ 
ation embraced in the law, but could add nothing 
to the remarks which he had the honor to submit 
to the House upon that subject when it was under 
consideration. He would, therefore, conclude by 
expressing the hope that many returns of the glori¬ 
ous anniversary of American Independence, just 
passed, would witness the Representatives of the 
people of the States assembled in this hall, con¬ 
secrated to that independence, elected in conformity 
to the provisions of a law which, however much 
reviled, was intended, and he believed calculated, 
to restore uniformity in elections, and equality in 
representation; without which, the form of our 
Government may remain, but its spirit will have 
departed. 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 041 565 227 6 


PvO 














* 0 " 

























































